Gun Control & RKBA

beevul

(12,194 posts)

39. Thats the problem with unrealistic thinking...

Reply to deathrind (Reply #28)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:26 PM

Oct 2015

Enacting common sense legislation that would require 100% background checks...

The federal government was never given authority over purely intrastate commerce. Perhaps at the state level.

...waiting periods for purchases...

Ever heard the phrase "a right delayed is a right denied"?

...mag caps...

Forgetting VT are we?

...none of which takes away a persons "right" to "bear arms" it just makes the process to ownership take a little longer.

That's your opinion.

It is an amazing display of cognitive dissonance by propoents of the 2nd amendment that on one hand they claim "guns don't kill people, people kill people" yet they firmly believe drugs should be illegal...because apparently drugs just jump into a persons system and kills the person not because the person ingested/injected the drug. We have drug laws and heavy regulation because humans do terrifically unwise things with them an mostly just hurt themselves...not an entire class room of 8-9-10 yr olds.

Maybe you should take that up with a second amendment proponent that actually espouses those views then? I can't think of a one of us here on DU that supports the drug war.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

50 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Universal Background Checks for firearms [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 OP

No. Better to repeal the 2nd Amendment. (nt) stone space Oct 2015 #1

As usual... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #2

Giving Gun Worshipers another Amendment to further Sanctify their Religion is not an step forward. stone space Oct 2015 #3

Neither is your course toward cultural purity. n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #4

Wow! GGJohn Oct 2015 #13

He does good Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #20

"Religion?" I don't think you'd like my holy water. Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #29

I'm an atheist. I don't want your religion forced on me. (nt) stone space Oct 2015 #36

Oh, no force necessary. At my age, it flows freely! Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #37

I'm not a gun worshiper. (nt) stone space Oct 2015 #38

Cool, either am I Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #41

Cool, GGJohn Oct 2015 #45

You spend a lot time trying to force your views on the rest of us Lurks Often Oct 2015 #40

Almost like Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #42

By all means, get off the couch and get started DonP Oct 2015 #5

It's the OP asking for a new Amendment. Suggest you take it up with him. stone space Oct 2015 #7

So, as usual, sit on your hands instead of standing up for what you believe in DonP Oct 2015 #8

He sure likes that public funding Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #21

The word you're searching for: "Indolent." nt Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #30

Indolent, lazy, cheap, ineffectual, they all work. n/t DonP Oct 2015 #43

You're the one who want's to repeal the 2A, GGJohn Oct 2015 #14

What fantasy land do you live where that is remotely possible? Lurks Often Oct 2015 #10

He says he lives in the real world Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #22

Just because he says it, certainly doesn't make it true. Lurks Often Oct 2015 #24

Where the unicorn farts rainbows over Michgan Avenue! Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #31

Well then, you should get right on it. GGJohn Oct 2015 #12

Yes add Oklahoma Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #23

Finally. One of those 'second amendment extremists' I've heard so much about... beevul Oct 2015 #25

Bugs you, huh? (nt) stone space Oct 2015 #34

Not in the least, GGJohn Oct 2015 #46

All I can give you is a big MAYBE. beemer27 Oct 2015 #6

You're welcome and thanks for the thoughtful reply discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #9

No, because I don't think that structure would do any good petronius Oct 2015 #11

The criteria would be being found guilty of crime... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #15

I am against UBCs without real compromise. Kang Colby Oct 2015 #16

Sounds great but one question discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #17

"E" is just too inflamatory for gun control people. It makes them crazy. DonP Oct 2015 #19

Its because 'E' has three barrels... beevul Oct 2015 #26

Sounds like my experience with describing Chicago gun laws as Jim (large, raucous black bird). Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #32

Edited. See Don P's post for an explanation. Kang Colby Oct 2015 #47

good work n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #50

Concur with petronius and kang colby, edgineered Oct 2015 #18

This is a reasonable proposal for this gun owner...Controllers? Not so much. Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #27

Why? They make progress on gun control, specifically background checks Kang Colby Oct 2015 #48

I am skeptical because much of the rhetoric here and elsewhere is characterized... Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #49

Hmmm... deathrind Oct 2015 #28

"...believe drugs should be illegal?" From The Anti-Ammosexual Handbook of Reality? Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #33

you do need a license to sell firearms gejohnston Oct 2015 #35

Thats the problem with unrealistic thinking... beevul Oct 2015 #39

Before you double down on your "believe drugs should be illegal" statement... beardown Oct 2015 #44